User talk:173.249.140.15

Law of the United States
Hi there. First and foremost, welcome to Wikipedia. Secondly, I was hoping you could explain the reasons for your edit on Law of the United States here. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 16:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Correcting the inconsistency of the text of the section to the image on the right. Regards... 173.249.140.15 (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I have clarified the caption. You may want to read Supremacy Clause. NW ( Talk ) 19:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reference to the Supremacy Clause. I was not aware that was the topic of the sentence.  I think that sums up my urge to amend the sentence.  It would leave a person with a misunderstanding and confusion of the general sense and constitutional sense of the meaning of "supreme law of the land"; else one would go away thinking a federal law would be on par with the Constitution when in reality it would need to be in "pursuance thereof".  Would you agree there should be that distinction?  Also, clarification that the title of the article is regarding the constitutional "law of the United States" rather than a general meaning.  Regarding the caption of the image, it seems superfluous to me.  Wouldn't it be cleaner just to caption it as "Image of Original US Constitution" or WTTE?  The caption of the image seems inappropriate to instruct in principals. 173.249.140.15 (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that seems fair. I'll do some tweaking, but feel free to change it. NW ( Talk ) 16:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Drake equation
My apologies for lack of intelligence, but I think you are confusing me with another editor. If you will recall my sole edit was to mark a sentence as unsourced. I can’ t imagine anyone having a problem with that. You and another person then entered an editing bonanza. I merely would like the original sentence with the notation that it is unsourced be returned. Of course, should someone find a source for that original sentence in question then my edit could then be replaced. As to the other edits, yours or otherwise, I have no opinion other than to point out that, to me, the referencing appears circular. Can we agree to return the sentence in question? After all, until my edit, you and others apparently had no problem with it. I would appreciate being allowed to enter my two cents. Thank you.


 * Please sign your contribution. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not very smart to delete the new references and label the sentence as unreferenced. It is certainly disruptive to keep revering it. Please read the section, and the cited references. If you till have a grievance, please post it in the talk page. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring on the Drake equation. The passage you keep trying to insert has nothing to do with Frank's equation and is not mentioned by him. Your continued reversions are not constructive and if they continue you may be banned from editing. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have taken responsibility for removing the entire, unsourced and inaccurate passage. Please stop your unregistered IP, disruptive editing. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This has been a real eye opener for me. I appreciate the education that the "dog in the manger" editors have given me. For now I know it is not possible to offer constructive input to wikipedia by anyone. My edit was limited to citing as unsourced a pre-existing sentence that all three of you kind editors knew was there and never touched it. So what do you all do when I place my "citation needed" edit? Find a reference for an implicitly accepted prior edit? No, rather you attack me, mock me and take no consideration that I am new to wikipedia and do not, as yet, know all the technical ways including "signing". I believe your collective actions are clearly contrary to wikipedia policy that everyone can contribute. The irony of you characterizing my edit as disruptive when it obviously led to the elimination of an erroneous statement that I did not agree with either (in my opinion). The only difference between you and me kind sir is that I was respectful enough to not remove what someone had placed but rather gave time and consideration that the original author and others could review and consider. After all, maybe the person (and their material) that you previously “approved” of can actually come up with a reference. Thanks to you now we will never know. The search for truth has been served, no? As for me I’ll take care to never encroach in your sandbox again….kind regards… s/unregistered IP person


 * Please stop this nonsense. The plain fact is that you had rejected invitations to take the matter to the article Talk page and have ignored comments from three editors to stop edit warring on at least three occasions, which could have resulted in a block. You mention the previous editor of the offending paragraph, I have to be honest and state that I missed the"contribution", which should have been deleted immediately. All editors, including myself, are happy to help - but your attitude has not been constructive - and once again please sign your contributions. Correspondence closed. Best wishes, David J Johnson (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Written notes in Wikipedia lack the body language, tone, volume, etc. of a normal conversation so it sometimes come across hostile when they are just brief edit summaries. I believe you were simply unaware that if an unsourced statement is tagged and challenged (which you did correctly), then it can be removed (see: Verifiability). Since all editors involved agreed on its deletion, there was no need to leave it there any longer with the "unsourced" tag. That is all. I hope you keep contributing in Wikipedia, create an account, and become familiar with the Five pillars of Wikipedia. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree with the above comments from BI. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to List of Family Guy characters
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits as you did to List of Family Guy characters. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you are given a good deal of freedom in what you write. Thank you! Demonuk (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

May 2022
Hello, I'm Taxin609. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Vernon Township, Scioto County, Ohio, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Taxin 609 ( Talk To Me ) 21:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Vernon Township, Scioto County, Ohio. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.  interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 21:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Vernon Township, Scioto County, Ohio, you may be blocked from editing.  interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 21:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Vernon Township, Scioto County, Ohio.  interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 21:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

March 2024
Hello, I'm Dirkbb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Porter Township, Scioto County, Ohio have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Dirkbb (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)